I don't see the huge deal...yeah, it plays a little like trying too hard to be relevant, but at the end of the day they are a rock band. It's not the worst thing in the world for them to try and stay current. U2 has collaborated with lots of artists throughout the years....not sure why collaborating with current ones draw more scorn than artists 20 years ago...is it just an age thing?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

see, the people they were collaborating with were U2's peers, BB King, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, not to mention Johnny Cash. The post-Pop era has been them reaching out to the new, cool kids. It should be the other way around.

A lot of U2's peers have retreated into legacy/heritage acts that don't do a whole lot of new stuff...if they are doing anything at all...U2 has outlasted nearly all of its peer group (see:R.E.M.). I suppose they could do something with Radiohead or something, but is that really even worth it? I would love to see something with David Byrne, but it would be super niche, no mass market appeal. And U2 is a business with investors.

I think just by nature of the numbers, if U2 wants to collaborate and keep it fresh it is going to just trend towards younger artists who are the next new thing. When the band was in its early years, there were still a lot of blues and folk and old school rock guys kickin' around that they could go and hang with. Those guys aren't really around anymore, and they generally don't have the long career arcs that they used to in our short attention span society.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

So we should all just sit back and, in a Zen-like state, just accept whatever happens without resisting, offering differing opinions, or wrestling through U2's decisions together?

Nah, sounds way too boring. The "U2 should do this or that" discussions are one of the reasons forums like this exist. I don't want to see this place domesticated or made too safe. I like being challenged.

It always makes me smile how people chime in playing the 'sick of people being negative' or 'sick of these type of threads' card.....or worse the old 'u2 owe us nothing' card.

So what they effectively want then when doing so is a forum to just discuss what is actually happening (which most of the time is nothing) and of course everything must be 'positive' as well....

Well - I suppose people can have that if they want by just not contributing to threads they don't like the look of......i mean we have all seen the long and deep debate about contributing respectfully that has taken place here and how what we post affects others etc......but still people can crash into threads like this one and state they are 'sick and tired' of what others want to and are talking about.

I'd bet you my last pound that if i waded into an appreciation thread about elevation and said i was 'tired of people praising the song' or 'sick of people liking songs i don't' that i would be getting my collar felt in no time......respect reall does have to fly both ways.

All i have seen here is largely respectful and interesting sharing of views and respectful but differing views being put forward punctured by the odd jibe by those who hide behind a 'i am positive' mask dragging the tone down...

Forums are built on discussion and people exchanging views...on people having interesting conversations and the best ones most importantly with people doing so in a respectful, intelligent and engaging manner....

'I am sick of this u2 do what they do take it or leave it' or 'go find another band' or 'why hang here' etc are in my view equally as bad as the sort of stuff that has been raised at length about 'negativity' and how that 'negativity' affects others stops them wanting to contribute, makes them send feedback to forum admin saying the 'place is negative' etc.

Respect and posting in a manner thay encourages cordial discourse and acting in am agreeable manner even when you disagree - especially when you disagree works both ways and I feel people would do well to remember that!

I honestly feel those perceived as 'negative' seem to have really taken that ethos on and run with it and the board is better for it....i would suggest some who deem themselves 'positive' could learn a thing or two in that area....

The forum is a better one when people engage in discussion in a respectful and open manner regardless of agreeing.

I realise that some of u2's most passionate and dedicated fans are in this community including those who run it and i also realise that to some any 'criticism' of the band may be almost heresy!....Here is the thing though - forums have space for all kinds of views....if you want to start a thread called 'u2 are the best band ever and have never made a mistep ever' and engage in a long thread that agrees with that and discusses why - you can!....If you want to start a thread called 'What colour undies do you think Bono wears most?' - you can (if you really must)....if you want a thread that praises Yahweh - you can and so on and so on.......By the same token people have exactly the same freedom to post 'I wish u2 would' 'i think u2 are' 'u2 could do better' etc threads.

All add to the rich tapestry and all have the choice to get involved or swerve - the way it should be.

But negativity does exist and forum members are entitled to question it or be perlexed by it. My own posts are mostly on the negative side, sometimes to be mischievous, sometimes because I am being a pessimist b****** or simply living in the past. If people want to call me negative, then fine, I get to offer my point of view to further the discussion.Conversely, if I don't get why some posters are hating on something, such as an unreleased song or album, then I will call out their negativity. A conversation may ensue and the forum gets more insight into the issues being discussed.I also get to highlight the positivity of posts too, something else that I do to push the conversation along. I think we've got to let the forum rules and moderators dictate what is acceptable on here without trying to add our own pet hates to them.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

So we should all just sit back and, in a Zen-like state, just accept whatever happens without resisting, offering differing opinions, or wrestling through U2's decisions together?

Nah, sounds way too boring. The "U2 should do this or that" discussions are one of the reasons forums like this exist. I don't want to see this place domesticated or made too safe. I like being challenged.

It always makes me smile how people chime in playing the 'sick of people being negative' or 'sick of these type of threads' card.....or worse the old 'u2 owe us nothing' card.

So what they effectively want then when doing so is a forum to just discuss what is actually happening (which most of the time is nothing) and of course everything must be 'positive' as well....

Well - I suppose people can have that if they want by just not contributing to threads they don't like the look of......i mean we have all seen the long and deep debate about contributing respectfully that has taken place here and how what we post affects others etc......but still people can crash into threads like this one and state they are 'sick and tired' of what others want to and are talking about.

I'd bet you my last pound that if i waded into an appreciation thread about elevation and said i was 'tired of people praising the song' or 'sick of people liking songs i don't' that i would be getting my collar felt in no time......respect reall does have to fly both ways.

All i have seen here is largely respectful and interesting sharing of views and respectful but differing views being put forward punctured by the odd jibe by those who hide behind a 'i am positive' mask dragging the tone down...

Forums are built on discussion and people exchanging views...on people having interesting conversations and the best ones most importantly with people doing so in a respectful, intelligent and engaging manner....

'I am sick of this u2 do what they do take it or leave it' or 'go find another band' or 'why hang here' etc are in my view equally as bad as the sort of stuff that has been raised at length about 'negativity' and how that 'negativity' affects others stops them wanting to contribute, makes them send feedback to forum admin saying the 'place is negative' etc.

Respect and posting in a manner thay encourages cordial discourse and acting in am agreeable manner even when you disagree - especially when you disagree works both ways and I feel people would do well to remember that!

I honestly feel those perceived as 'negative' seem to have really taken that ethos on and run with it and the board is better for it....i would suggest some who deem themselves 'positive' could learn a thing or two in that area....

The forum is a better one when people engage in discussion in a respectful and open manner regardless of agreeing.

I realise that some of u2's most passionate and dedicated fans are in this community including those who run it and i also realise that to some any 'criticism' of the band may be almost heresy!....Here is the thing though - forums have space for all kinds of views....if you want to start a thread called 'u2 are the best band ever and have never made a mistep ever' and engage in a long thread that agrees with that and discusses why - you can!....If you want to start a thread called 'What colour undies do you think Bono wears most?' - you can (if you really must)....if you want a thread that praises Yahweh - you can and so on and so on.......By the same token people have exactly the same freedom to post 'I wish u2 would' 'i think u2 are' 'u2 could do better' etc threads.

All add to the rich tapestry and all have the choice to get involved or swerve - the way it should be.

But negativity does exist and forum members are entitled to question it or be perlexed by it. My own posts are mostly on the negative side, sometimes to be mischievous, sometimes because I am being a pessimist b****** or simply living in the past. If people want to call me negative, then fine, I get to offer my point of view to further the discussion.Conversely, if I don't get why some posters are hating on something, such as an unreleased song or album, then I will call out their negativity. A conversation may ensue and the forum gets more insight into the issues being discussed.I also get to highlight the positivity of posts too, something else that I do to push the conversation along. I think we've got to let the forum rules and moderators dictate what is acceptable on here without trying to add our own pet hates to them.

Peace out.

You seem to have missed the point.....the point was about the poster feeling the need to state he/she was sick and tired of the kind of thread exile had started....which is an exact example of trying to add our own pet hates to what is posted here rather than as you say letting the mods decide what is acceptable/actually adding something that improves/advances the conversation as you say. Exile was clearly narked by the post as well.

As I said and as you said people should be able to post freely (as long as they are doing so respectfully) without others trying that kind of censorship.....I can just imagine what would happen if i for example waded into the band section and stated i was sick and tired of threads about how 'bono rocks peoples world'.....I don't do it because it is 'dickish' and against the rules/spirit of the rules.....

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.

Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.

I'm not arguing against the artistic merits if that album (it's their best ever in my mind), nor am I bigging up Crazy Tonight.

But I do believe U2's main objectives have ALWAYS been to create music that's both highly lucrative and hugely popular and relevant. Sometimes they hit and sometimes they miss, but they're still driven by the same forces.

Rather than have so much negativity in this forum, why can't we just celebrate whatever new output U2 has made.

At this stage in their careers, they don't owe the fans new music. They can bask in retirement and let their money in the bank grow interest.

If U2 choose to relive an era that many missed because they were not born yet in 1987, then I wish U2 well.

If U2 choose to take risks by collaborating with different genre artists whose target market is a different generation, then who are we to be negative and complain?

Let's be positive and always remember that U2 owe us absolutely nothing anymore. And whatever path they choose to take is at their own terms, and is better than retirement.

In reality, U2 are up off their knees and not munching chips in their couches while watching sports channels.

Cheers,

J

U2 set themselves a very high standard. We - as fans - hold them to that standard, and sometimes we perceive they are not achieving it.

Just because U2 are U2 doesn't give them a free pass to no longer meet the standards they have set themselves and we expect of them.

In business terms, there is often a "Critical Friend" who points out perhaps areas where things might not be perfect. Here we do so not out of being haters, but out of love. We want the band to be great, and occasionally they make decisions that baffle us, or decisions that fall short of their - and our - expectations. Occasionally they release boxsets that are horrendously overpriced for the content and we, as consumers, quite rightly have opinions on those. You can argue we can exercise our opinions by not buying them, but we won't not buy them.

Previous examples include "Best Of's" in 1998,2002, and 2006 that looked - to the outsider - to be slightly desperate attempts to reset themselves as 'legends' after the well documented 1998 crisis of confidence and the 2001, 2004-5 periods of consolidation. If they'd said "We got £50m as long as we agreed to put out 3 Best Of's", nobody would've denied them the payday.

Of course I'm going to buy TJT#30 and see multiple shows on the tour, but that doesn't mean I think U2 are beyond criticism. U2 have slowly become more insular and retrospective over the years, and are in danger of becoming a touring museum, especially if they have only released one record in the past eight years. By navelgazing over their own self-imposed desire for cultural relevance, they have overthought themselves into a corner. A good record shouldn't be delayed by not being politically 'of the time' : good music is timeless and exists outside of the socio-economic circumstances of the year of release. Art should be felt - not thought.

I'd love to celebrate their new output, but 16 songs in 8 years is a poor reward to celebrate.

Rather than have so much negativity in this forum, why can't we just celebrate whatever new output U2 has made.

Again, this is a call for mindless approval of anything U2 does, regardless of whether we like it, simply because the alternative is that they retire and quit making music altogether.

Sorry, but I am not mindless and I don't "celebrate" every little thing U2 does, nor do I consider "negativity" a vice necessarily. The whole reason Bono says he likes being in a band rather than being a solo artist like Sting is that bands require a measure of democracy and fighting to get your point across, whereas a solo artist can just legislate and his hired help has to fall in line. The people in this forum who seek to squash constructive criticism and demand we celebrate every bit of output U2 gives us are acting like exactly the kinds of sycophants that Bono seeks to avoid.

PS - As with all artists, musicians, and athletes, there will come a point where we will WANT the band to retire. I'd rather they go out on a high note (like Seinfeld) than overstaying their welcome (like The X-Files).

ok here's a hot opinion in regards to what exile said. i'm ready for them to retire. i've been ready since ATYCLB, and i very much loved that album on it's release, and i still love SOI. i just think they aren't interested in music anymore. if anything they should take a solid 10 years off or so. if they don't wanna see themselves turn into the Stones, then any day now guys....

This is a totally worthy debate and as Exile says this should be a safe place to have it. I for one am glad they're not acting their age and that they strive to connect with a mass audience still. That ambition, to impact as many folk as they can was partly why we all got into them at first wasn't it? Even just a little? I try to imagine myself in their position sometimes. It's tempting to think I'd be entirely artistically focused and unaffected by the desire to retain mass appeal but having tasted it for so long it must be hard to let go. I admire them for that. I also think they are hand on heart still aiming to be the biggest and the best. Keep the faith guys, they've got a few fights left in them yet and we will see and hear something great in this next phase I think.

The original post seems to believe the motivation for being on DAMN was to reach a youthful audience. Truth is we know nothing about how it came about or the motivation in doing so.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Can't believe this little comment led to a lengthy essay and it being called a "dickish" move. I guess some posters are above reproach. The KL collaboration wasn't even out when the op was posted. Most reactions I've seen to XXX have been positive. There was a tone of condescension and that was what I was reacting to.

The original post seems to believe the motivation for being on DAMN was to reach a youthful audience. Truth is we know nothing about how it came about or the motivation in doing so.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Can't believe this little comment led to a lengthy essay and it being called a "dickish" move. I guess some posters are above reproach. The KL collaboration wasn't even out when the op was posted. Most reactions I've seen to XXX have been positive. There was a tone of condescension and that was what I was reacting to.

The original post seems to believe the motivation for being on DAMN was to reach a youthful audience. Truth is we know nothing about how it came about or the motivation in doing so.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Can't believe this little comment led to a lengthy essay and it being called a "dickish" move. I guess some posters are above reproach. The KL collaboration wasn't even out when the op was posted. Most reactions I've seen to XXX have been positive. There was a tone of condescension and that was what I was reacting to.

Actually, the KL collaboration was out when the op was posted.

The output of the collaboration wasn't the focus of the OP when this thread was posted, more the thought process behind it and the perceived perception.

The original post seems to believe the motivation for being on DAMN was to reach a youthful audience. Truth is we know nothing about how it came about or the motivation in doing so.

I'm pretty tired of all the "U2 should do this or that" discussions. I should do a lot of things too...but I don't. They are what they are, take it or leave it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Can't believe this little comment led to a lengthy essay and it being called a "dickish" move. I guess some posters are above reproach. The KL collaboration wasn't even out when the op was posted. Most reactions I've seen to XXX have been positive. There was a tone of condescension and that was what I was reacting to.